Oaths, Drones and Democracy

I checked the military oaths for enlisted and commissioned members of the military (Google them), and found that they have an important difference. I took both of these in the Army, as an enlisted Private and then as a commissioned officer, Second Lieutenant. I don’t see anywhere that one oath supersedes the other, nor are they additive, and in fact some people enter service as an officer, and therefore might not take the enlisted oath.It is very interesting that the enlisted oath requires them to “obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officer’s appointed over me,” as well as follow the Constitution, while the officer’s oath has no mention of following the orders of the President of the United States or the officers appointed over them. This strikes me as a very odd and disturbing inconsistency. It can only be interpreted as meaning officers only have an obligation to “support and defend the Constitution,” and the interpretation of how to do so is left up to them individually.

I also note that each oath stipulates the obligation to protect “against all enemies, foreign or DOMESTIC.” In light of the current furor over new documents regulating decisions to make drone strikes that indicate the U.S. can kill suspected enemies, including U.S. citizens, without any legal evidence, but just the suspicion they are dangerous to the U.S. The presence of “domestic enemies” in the military oaths that have been around so long is interesting in light of these new documents, just revealed in the news media today.

These newly revealed documents only add to my increasing concern about the apparent vagueness and weakening of judiciary standards and checks and balances in the decision-making and relationships between our elected civilian government, the intelligence community, the military and the judiciary. The greatest victim in all this may be the degree of public transparency necessary to the survival of this or any constitutional democracy.

4 comments

You may have just completely agreed with what I said a few months back! Our President doesnt follow the constitution or is his administration transparent as campaigned. That is why it amazed me that he was reelected considering all the facts you just mentioned. It shows a lack of knowledge that American voters (and some not American voters) contain. Still looking for justification for the affordable care act tax in the constitution! (and our supreme court judges, all of them, need to follow the letter of the Constitution and not their own partisan beliefs)

There is no duration defined in the Oath itself. The term of service for each enlisted person is written on the DD Form 4 series, the contract which specifies the enlistment period, which for a first-time enlistee is typically eight years, which can be a combination of active duty and time spent in a reserve component , although enlisted reservists are subject to activation until the end of the eight-year initial military obligation.

There is no duration defined in the Oath itself. The term of service for each enlisted person is written on the DD Form 4 series, the contract which specifies the enlistment period, which for a first-time enlistee is typically eight years, which can be a combination of active duty and time spent in a reserve component , although enlisted reservists are subject to activation until the end of the eight-year initial military obligation.

The words “or affirmation” are omitted as covered by the definition of the word “oath” in section 1 of title 1 . The words “of any armed force” are inserted in the last sentence, since they are necessarily implied by their use in the source statute.